When nobel prize winning, west Australian medical researchers proved that ulcers were not as the wider medical community believed, the product of amplified acid production! But the product of bacterial infection!

They were universally howled down by a cynical medical community, who almost to a generic man, like the resident homophobes, believed what they'd been conditioned by years of standard practise, to believe?

Just because the inarguable research says one thing, doesn't mean those brainwashed activists, will ever accept evidence to the contrary!

Given that would allow or oblige them to own some terrible personal behavior, some of which, bullying to the point, where some young folk were left with no other choice than end their lives, by their own hand?

But with the hypothetical gun and ammunition supplied and loaded by the homophobic community.

One would think that someone who reports, was once a police person, wouldn't refuse to look at the evidence!? Even where that destroys a favorite if convenient theory?

I'm sick of frigging evidence destroying my favorite, if completely wrong theory and making me seem no better than the criminals I used to bang up?

The mark of intelligence O.S.W., is the ability to accept conflicting evidence, particularly when that conflicting evidence proves beyond doubt, one was laboring under a completely false premise!

Been there done that! And sincere apologies to any and all wronged by that, inculcated from birth, attitude!

Pavlov's dogs will however, continue to mindlessly salivate whenever the mind bending/mind conditioning bell tolls! WOOF, BARK, SNARL!
Alan B.

Eric Porter has stated what is right and fundamental about marriage. It is all about reproduction. Marriage is an institution established for that nurture and education of children.
The Judeo Christian culture constitutes most of the First World, the rich world, precisely because it has established marriage as such an institution for nurture of children, i.e . the nuclear family- not because of any particular beliefs in one God.
The rest of the First World consists of countries which have adopted the nuclear family as the basic building block of their societies because they have observed how it works for the betterment of society.
It is the nuclear family which brings children to the maximum of their potential where invention, innovation and progress thrive.

Every invention from the steam engine through harnessing of electricity, locomotives internal combustion engines, radio wireless to computers and internet have been spawned in societies based on the nuclear family.

There was no doubt what marriage meant in 1901 when the Australian Constitution was drafted. There never was a proper basis for the Federal Parliament to define marriage. That is for a majority of the people in a majority of the States to do and no- one else. If the High Court thinks otherwise it is wrong too. That would be to allow the Federal Parliament to expand its powers beyond those given in the Constitution by simply redefining the words in the Constitution. That is a corruption of the rule of law, and a breach of the pact made when the Constitution came into being.

I am, SAINTS.

<<Is anyone watching this?>>

So, if a bunch of ratbags behave in a distasteful way, your response to deny an entire demographic equal treatment just because their interests are shared?

Ri-i-i-i-ight.

--

diver dan,

You need to look up the difference between homosexuality, incest, bestiality, and promiscuity.

You are yet to explain why homosexuality is evil or a sickness, too. Remember?

--

Old Man,

That might have been it’s original purpose.

<<Marriage is an institution established for that nurture and education of children.>>

But there are other purposes now, such as the standardisation of legal entitlements and the prompt identification of legal rights.

Could you please cite the sources for your claims regarding the nuclear family? It appears as though they have gotten it arse-backwards and don’t realise that the nuclear family was made possible because of the wealth and prosperity of the Western World, not the other way around.

<<Every invention from the steam engine through harnessing of electricity, locomotives internal combustion engines, radio wireless to computers and internet have been spawned in societies based on the nuclear family.>>

So, how did your sources control for cultural, environmental, and other sociological factors?

<<There was no doubt what marriage meant in 1901 when the Australian Constitution was drafted.>>

Marriage isn’t defined in the Constitution, therefore, there are no legal limitations on expanding it to include gay couples.

<<There never was a proper basis for the Federal Parliament to define marriage.>>

Yes, there is. Section 51(xxi):

“The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to marriage;

Given your misunderstanding of constitutional law, I trust you were also up in arms about the Howard government's change to the Marriage Act specifying one man and one woman?

Seems to be a lot of people pretending they were a yes vote and now they are voting no... It's all bulldust: you were all voting no to begin with and just want to complain about lefties because if the capital "L" iberal party voters who want to vote no couldn't complain about lefties they would cry!

Face it: you all were voting no from the start!

I was thinking: what would it take to change my vote to 'Yes'?

well, I vote 'No' to prevent the expansion of a government "service" that should not have existed in the first place. Had the overall use of this "service" been reduced in other ways, then extending it to same-sex couples would not be a problem.

So here is the deal: if currently-married [heterosexual] couples will be able to de-register/annul their marriage (without being forced to separate), based on the fair claim that the registration of their marriage was based on a former definition of "marriage" that is now no longer so, then I would be OK with same-sex couples registering their marriage under the new definition.

If marriage is a contract, then like in any other contract, nobody should be able to change it on the fly after it was made without the consent of all parties, including its "definitions" section.

The biggest difference between marriage and boyfriend/girlfriend relationships (in my opinion) is stability. Dating is not a stable sitution. Nowhere is there an element that says that the person you date is serious enough to stick by you and not leave. If one person feels that way but the other doesn't who would know? Agreeing to be married offers that kind of stability in a relationship because at least they both agree to their commitment to eachother.

It's in that stability that having a family is worthwhile, and having children outside of marriage offers a range of issues that can be burdensome to the single parents.

It's also stability for the children. Having a mom, dad, or both that don't change by the fragile winds of dating, or from the even less stable nature of being in foster homes from one home to another.

If that stability shows that it's not really there, (due to abuse or adultry) then that's often the prime reason to get out of the relationship. (Or it should be anyways).

Same sex marriages are something fought for and against for reasons outside of what marriage does to add stibility. If there's merrit to those points and people agree with them then society (including the government legislation), will follow suit, and offer or deny the rights and stability that marriage gives to homosexuals.

If same sex marriage doesn't happen then what that means is that society culmatively hadn't adopted it. On the flipside if same sex marriages are allowed that also reflects off of the attitudes of society. Regardless how any of us feel about same sex marriages if it comes about or doesn't, each of us will have to come to terms with the idea that this is what the magority of people think is right.

It's not about government sponsored programs that help out society, as much as it's what the population agrees with and supports.